Rorate Caeli

Austrian Bishops in open revolt


And they complain about the "Lefebvrist" Bishops?! "Why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?"




"4. There were problems of communication also in the recent appointment of an auxiliary bishop for the Diocese of Linz. The bishops are aware that Fr Wagner asked the Pope to withdraw the appointment. The theme of Episcopal appointments is therefore important because since the mid-eighties in Austria it has been associated with a number of problems. For many, the controversy over episcopal appointments led to a painful conflict, and they have triggered splits in the church,. It is precisely in this area that sensitivity is most appropriate. There is no question that the Pope is free to appoint bishops. The bishops do not want to go back in time where - as in 1918 - the Emperor alone chose the bishops. Even a 'popular choice' of the bishops would divide the church into parties and conflicts would be inevitable. We bishops are convinced that the procedure provided for in canon law for the selection and the examination of candidates has proved its worth, if this procedure is really followed. Therefore, before the Holy Father takes the final decision, reliable and thoroughly tested basic information must be provided on which he can rely. In Austria in the next few years a number of bishops are to be appointed. The faithful are legitimately concerned that the process of candidate search, examination of the proposals and the final decisions should be carefully undertaken and with pastoral sensitivity are possible. This can ensure that bishops are appointed who are not 'against' but 'for' a local church. We bishops will make every possible effort to support the forthcoming episcopal appointments in the sense of monitoring these procedures in close cooperation with the relevant Vatican offices."
....
"Trusting in God's help, we will overcome the crisis of recent weeks." [Adapted according to original text]

There was no true "crisis", but open revolt against the Pope, inflamed and supported by the shameless Bishops of Austria, first among them the Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna. If the Pope does not intervene urgently in this case, if a PUBLIC response is not given - since the Bishops of Austria chose to make the matter public - the perception of the authority of the Pope in Europe is finished. The anti-Roman rebellion of the Austrian Bishops is intolerable.

107 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when you "spare the rod". For almost fifty years these people have gotten away with murder; you're not going to rein them in now.

Anonymous said...

Part of this German-Austrian thing reminds me of the ''Old Catholic'' schism of 1870 ... alhough we're not there yet, hopefully !

The ''leftist'' catholics have a HUGE amount of things in common with the ''old'' catholics, who are pro-women's ordination, pro-gay, pro-Episcopal church, anti-Roman, etc.

It's also a very ''European'' problem : notice how almost NO bishops in Mexico, USA and Canada has rebelled over this : Zero, Nada, etc. The Church is indeed universal !

Anonymous said...

Gott erhalte Benedikt, den Papst, unsern guten Papst Benedikt!

Confiteor said...

Taste the bitter fruit of collegiality.

Little by little, the Holy Father will learn to recognize his true friends, as well as his true enemies. Such madness should only hasten reconciliation with the SSPX.

Hebdomadary said...

I'd like to think that he is drawing them out into the open, so that he can fire on them at will. However, while that could be the case, I don't think it is. Yet more evidence, if any more were needed, of the BITTER FRUIT of VATICAN II, of its inherent program of undermining the authority of the papacy in the name of social populism, leading to open hostility against the pope and blatant schism - and we must ask ourselves WHO WAS DISOBEDIENT FIRST: BUGGERNINI AND HIS CADRES OR THE FSSPX?

WE KNOW IT BY ITS FRUIT: VATICAN II is a satanic lie. Modernist Bishops, do your worst: drive the pope from the Vatican, call him anti-pope, unseat the successor of Peter if you can, but you cannot - ESPECIALLY IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL TOTALITY OF INFORMATION - escape the historical truth, and the disconnect that we see, anymore than the USSR could escape the conscience of the people and the watchful and willing eye of SOLZHENITSYN. We know the liars that you are, and we will go on in the traditions of the church, underground if necessary, persecuted if necessary, but one day we will bury you, as we have other heresiarchs and their heresies.

Be well warned: we are watching you: Keep your hands off Benedict XVI.

Pascendi said...

These apostate "do-nothing" bishops, have finally seen fit to swing into "action" --- Sadly - zealous for schism and rebellion against Peter.

Hebdomadary said...

God Save Pope Benedict XVI: Our Lady of Victories, intercede for him!

Francesco said...

I have an idea...

Do not appoint any more bishops in Austria until all the current bishops either reach the retirement age or die...then appoint new bishops for every single see and auxiliary post...

Of course, this idea would assume that there would be a solidly traditional and orthodox pope at the time when all the bishops of Austria die or reach retirement age.

May God grant Pope Benedict many years!

ponte said...

Nobody wants to say it and this comment may be censored but I'll say it anyway, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna is a weak, worthless, spineless and out-of-touch man who is better at selling manuscripts to Ignatius Press and making a good show on EWTN (things outside of Austria) than he actually is at teaching, governing, and shepherding his own diocese and, to what degree that he can, the entire country.

As for Linz, it makes the Mahoneian Las Angelis seem like Econe.

Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

Anonymous said...

Von Schoenborn is just making a pitch for the next conclave...

Anonymous said...

Well, of course, the Austrian bishops are revolting.

P.K.T.P.

Guadalupe Guard said...

So much evil was allowed to metastasize under the reign of Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict is so very mild, yet in comparison to John Paul he is a hammer of heretics. Though the world was kinder to Pope John Paul than to Pope Benedict, Catholic history will not be.

Tom S. said...

This reminds me of some sage advice I got decades ago from a riding instructor:

Either YOU ride the Horse, or the Horse rides YOU.

Anonymous said...

Let us pray that, for the good of the Church, Benedict resigns his Office soon. He has failed.

Anonymous said...

The Austrian Church has been in a state of decay for a long time. Today we reach something close to the ruins of the Dutch Church in the 1960's-1970's when popes Paul VI and John Paul II had to act strongly to avoid a ... schism.

Clearly, the Austrian episcopate wants to appoint the future bishops and leave the pope with a nominal role. It is highly ironic for them to mention the former appointment by the emperors before 1918.

It is a move toward independent national Churches, the old "gallicanism" revival.
What a disaster !
The worst is naturally that the so-called neo-cons, supposedly orthodox, cardinal von Schönborn is presiding at this blitzkrieg against the papacy. Because beyond the present pope, this Austrian war has the papacy as a target.
If these rebels win, the present pope will be congealed, unable to put fresh blood into the dying body of European Churches.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't Pope Benedict XVI tell us at the beginning of his Pontificate that he would rather have a small Church which would be faithful to the teachings of Christ than a bigger Church that wasn't. Well....we are on that path.It would be better if those that want to break away just do that...have your women priests, ordain your gay's, priests who are pro-choice..have your Pelosi's and Kennedy's, but in the end your church will die out and the True Roman Catholic Church will still be around with Peter. There was maybe a reason for the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops.
In the end all I can say is "only God knows, why and what will happen".

Anonymous said...

On the last comment, no matter what Modernists and liberals say to the contrary, popes don't resign; they abdicate. I know, I know, even papal statements now refer to 'resignations' but this is not in accord with the traditional terminology. A resignation implies that somebody has to accept it. But there is no superior to a pope. Moreover, the Pope is a King, a Sovereign, not just some pathetic republican office-holder. The Vatican is not the U.S.A., thank God. The Vatican is a monarchy, thank God; as is my country, the Dominion of Canada. We have kings and queens and they can't 'resign'.

Should Benedict XVI abdicate? Of course not. Has he become a rubber stamp? Certainly not: a rubber stamp could not have withdrawn the censure of excommunication or enacted "Summorum Pontificum".

This is a struggle. We need to pray for everything and to work for things in accordance with circumstances and reason. The next step is a decree granting faculties to Society priest during the period of reconcilining, a period which could last as short as several months or as long as several decades.

This Sunday, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, would be a good time for that.

As for complete reconciliation, the Society is right PROVIDED that, in the mean time, Rome extends this jurisdiction for the Sacraments. Since this period could perdure for years and years, we need a clear statement on the status of their Masses and confessions, marriages and confirmations.

Benedict XVI or Pope Benedict XVI or the Pope or the Holy Father or the Vicar of Christ or the Supreme Pontiff but NOT 'Pope Benedict' (which can only refer to Benedict I) and NEVER 'Benedict' has other things to do. I predict a consistory for 2010 to name another twelve cardinals. There are too few spaces in the College available to do it this year.

Secondly, there is the ongoing work in the Congregation for Liturgy, now under good management, to make NewMass unambiguously Catholic.

Thirdly, this Pope can resolve at least some of the doctrinal questions put to him by the Society.

Fourth, the Pope can reconcile the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC).

Oh, there's lots to do. An abdication right now would put the choice of a successor mostly in the hands of the John-Pauline cardinals. The more the Pope stacks the College, the better.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Benedict ought to call em in and sit their a--es down and really tell em the way it is. Otherwise, send em off to Calcutta, the Congo, or Kashmeer..who would care. Then re-appoint True Defenders of the Faith!

Ma Tucker said...

I bet these pathetic rebellious stupid children are very quick to demand obedience to themselves. Goodbye Austrian Wolves.

Paul Haley said...

His Holiness is in charge, the people and the bishops are not. God bless Pope BenedictXVI and protect him from all harm. He will weather this storm and his appointment will be sustained if not in Linz in the Heavenly Courts. The bishops are cutting their own throats with their arrogance and failure to follow the Vicar of Christ.

Fr Gabriel said...

I invite you all to send a protest to the Austrian Bishops via their website. I have already done so.
here is their website
http://www.bischofskonferenz.at

Anonymous said...

As ye sow...so shall ye reap and by their fruits ye shall know them. The episcopal-clad Sons of the Serpent are hissing their non serviam so loudly the entire World can hear. And the World is listening. What will Peter do???

Christopher said...

Why not mount a letter writing campaign against the Austrian hierarchy in favour of the Pope?

Joe B said...

The church has been through this before. The monks of Cluny reformed Europe once by being made independent of the local bishops by the pope and by being encouraged to spread throughout Europe. They grew in numbers by the grace of God and, by their holiness, drew good Catholics away from the wretched bishops of the time. It was a time, as now, when simply firing all the bad bishops wouldn't work - they were virtually all bad, and so were the candidates under them.

It will take an order of reformist priests. Dedicated to reform, independent, able to withstand criticism from local clergy, dedicated to Our Lady, and already with their own independent seminary and worldwide apostolate ... gosh, if only we had one of those somewhere.

The Holy Father needs to figure out who his real friends are. Perhaps he will eventually see how superbly equipped SSPX is for the needed reform. Our Maccabees.

David S said...

Just to join the choir, ...

Indeed that document, and the conduct of those who have signed it, is a disgrace and merely highlights the true nature of the difficulties in Austria for all to see. Yet can we really be surprised or shocked? "By their fruits you shall know them." I think I see plenty of deformed, rotten fruit lying around....

The wolf-priests and wolf-bishops that have had time to breed in the last 50 years are simply hard at work making sure their food supply does not now get rescued by shepherds who, heaven forbid(!), are actually faithful, orthodox, authentic Catholics.

This said, it is refreshing to better see the wolves in the daylight, than to have them sneaking around in the dark and leading their double lives. The Body of Christ can then better pray for their repentance, in true charity, and be appropriately wary of them.

It is time to redouble the prayers and the apologetical advocacy. May Holy Mother Church be spared from all ravenous and deceitful wolves, especially those who are members of our clergy. Let us pray the current F.S.S.P. novena for him with one voice.

May Almighty God continue to bless and strengthen our Sovereign Pontiff, hear and address his intentions, and provide for all of his temporal and spiritual needs.

... Written by a humble and contrite convert to the True Faith and the True Church, who whilst on the journey and entirely with God's grace, discovered a little of the meaning of submission to something far greater than himself.

thetimman said...

To the person who called for the Holy Father to resign:

How dare you!

He needs our support and prayers and Catholic action, not our condemnation.

I can just see you on Holy Thursday writing off St. Peter as a lost cause.

Stephen said...

Let's make our views known in defence of the Church:

Seiner Exzellenz
Dr. Edmond FARHAT
Titularerzbischof von Byblos
Apostolischer Nuntius in Österreich
Theresianumgasse 31
1040 Wien

Tel.: +43 1 505 13 27
Fax: +43 1 505 61 40
E-Mail: nuntius@nuntiatur.at
Internet: www.nuntiatur.at

Anonymous said...

"So much evil was allowed to metastasize under the reign of Pope John Paul II. "

I copied this sentence from one of the contributors.

After this Austrian rebellion, and in Germany, and to a lesser degree in France, not to mention the disaster of liturgical abuses and the rot of the Novus Ordo, the paedophile and homosexual clergy (a vast majority of the rad liberal priests rebelling against the good Msgr. Wagner are homosexuals), radical femminist habitless nuns, the collapse of the USA Catholic Church and indeed around the world, the horrible appointments of Bishops in dioceses which came from Rome for 30 years and are a root of this problem, the corruption of seminaries and the lack of Catholic tradition in them or anywhere...because of all this I dare anyone to speak of "JOHN PAUL THE GREAT", or "Santo subito....make him a saint now" etc.

The rot of the Church laid at Benedict XVI's doorstep was created by either John Paul II directly by his liberal agenda and priorities, or by his underlings who went further even than he.
The liturgical corruption in Linz is not much unlike the Masses John Paul II officiated at, and approved of thru Piero Marini.

Yes, tremendous evil, abuses, and corruption was allowed to matastasize under John Paul II...either with his knowledge and approval, or due to his benign neglect.

Cardinal Schonborn will not be the next Pope. He will be able to vote, but he will be too old to be considered, and he will be discredited by then. The Church will think of him and his views, in the way people think of Paul VI.

And that's not a compliment.

VirgoPotens said...

Joe B: I think you're right on the money. The story of Cluny has been echoing in my mind for weeks and I can't believe more people aren't talking about it and making the parallel.

Catholic Observer said...

The Austrian bishops are a cancer on the Church. When you have cancer, you get it extracted. Otherwise it'll end up spreading. A schism mightn't be such a terrible thing at all...and let's face it, it's becoming increasingly more likely.

Hebdomadary said...

Doing what I can. I just sent the following letter to His Excellency Dr. Farhat. What good it will do, I don't know. But I wrote what I felt.

Your Excellency,

As a faithful Catholic I am apalled and disgraced by the shameful rejection of the will of Peter, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, by the so-called 'Bishops' of Austria. They humiliate themselves and scandalize all the faithful in their trecherous mutiny against Pope Ratzinger. Here we see in action the true meaning of Vatican II "collegiality": the nationalization of the church and the perpetuation of the hermeneutic of rupture; the prideful exaltation of the local bishopric and pandering to a childish vision of ecumenical church unity that doesn't and will not exist.

In the information age, the world is a much smaller place, and your actions in Austria resonate beyond your borders. Nevertheless, German and Austrian collective GUILT for the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Shoah, do not determine the necessary parameters for the recovery of Catholic Identity in the age following the post-'60's hangover. The world is moving on into a Catholic future, and you won't hold us back. Don't push your guilty consciences off onto the rest of the world, we don't share them. Deal with it yourselves on a daily basis, but our Catholic business is our own, not subject to approval by the rest of the world. The Church is not a Democracy. Have the courtesy to stand up to the new European relativists and secularists like men, Catholic men, and support Pope Benedict XVI.

Lest you be under any misconception, I am a diocesan Catholic, not a member of the FSSPX: but where your bishops and I are concerned, we are members of two different faiths. What Archbishop Lefebvre did was precisely as a defense from men like these, who seek to remake the church in their own humanist image. I hope they one day return to ROMAN Catholicism, but I won't hold my breath. It seems that Austrian Catholicism is dead, for now, and I STRONGLY protest the prideful, open rebellion of the Austrian Bishops against Pope Benedict.

God Save Pope Benedict XVI: Our Lady of Victories, intercede for him against the faithless German and Austrian Bishops.

In Domino...

And I signed my real name to it as well. Foolish, perhaps, but it's time to stand up like a man...a Catholic man.

God Save the Pope.

Anonymous said...

ITS TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TIERRA AND TAKE THE GLOVES OFF AND REMINED THESE TURKEYS WHOSE IN CHARGE.

Athelstane said...

This can ensure that bishops are appointed who are not 'against' but 'for' a local church.

What does this even mean?

Jason said...

Some of these bishops, many of whom have been in open revolt against the Chair of Peter, have caused immeasurable travesties worse than "murder." The damage caused to innocents in the so-called abuse crisis, are crimes that "call to heaven for justice."

Please pray that the Holy Father takes action now to strengthen the Church and may God give him added fortitude and necessary health to continue on a path that brings unity to our Faith and many souls to Christ.

Athelstane said...

Hello Hebdomadary:

"VATICAN II is a satanic lie."

You *are* talking about an ecumenical council of virtually all of the world's then-3000-odd bishops in communion with a validly elected Roman pontiff. I assume there are no sedevacantists here, yes?

We can all agree there are some infelicitously worded parts of the Council documents. That some statements were dangerously ambiguous, or too naively open to the language of insufficiently examined modern philosophies. That regardless of its intrinsic worth or congruence with the Church Tradition, its implementation and warped interpretation since 1965 has been largely a disaster.

But to call the Council "satanic" is really a bridge too far. This kind of language is not helpful. It isn't constructive. And it calls into question too much of the Church's legitimacy and authority.

Brother Juniper said...

Thank you for sharing this news with us. It absolutely infuriated me when I read it.

I wonder if the Pope can issue an interdict with regard to the entire country of Austria. I know that this is a drastic action that would essentially shut down all services in the country and effectively excommunicate the bishops who signed this declaration.

As one other poster put it, this is the bitter fruit of collegiality. I cannot agree more.

Anonymous said...

JMJ

I was praying for the Holy Father when a thought came to mind. "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will be preserved etc". If the Austrian bishops are simply pioneering what is to be a widespread universal and now manifest and pertinacious rejection of Papal authority, it would make the prophecy of Fatima much more clear. Perhaps only a handful of episcopal conferences will remain faithful to Peter.

In any case, I can certainly appreciate now why Peter has not yet been able to effect the needed Consecration of Russia. How many bishops in Austria and elsewhere would support such a call?

Our Lady of Fatima, Out Lady of Good Success, pray for us! Pray for the Glory of the Olive!

Bill M said...

Who are these "non-entities?", these near heretics? Their churches are empty and so is their rhetoric.

No one can be all things to all people. Speak the truth and let "the chips fall where they may".

Let them join Dawkins and his crew.

Long live the Holy Father.

Anonymous said...

I am with Hebomadary.

These dogs have destroyed the primary pillars of our civilization and they cry like babies, resentful of their heritage and the graces granted by God to their ancestors.

Enjoy life under the Turks, Kammeraden, 'cause Sobieski isn't going to bail you out next time!

LeonG said...

We have had de facto schism for quite some time now in various dioceses. This only serves to make it even more objectively demonstrable. John Paul II (RIP) in 1995 in his Episcopal Letter expressed the desire to reduce papal power to a matter of mere ecumenical episcopal consensus and this is what we have got - the post-conciliar collegial condition has reached full maturity. Why, therefore, are so many surprised by this tumult?

This is yet another manifestation of the new philosophy of post-conciliarism. The Pope is a bishop amongst bishops and when all is said and done the Vatican Secretary of State is always at hand to put another spanner in his works if necessary. And the consequences for discipline in The Church are devastating since where now does ultimate responsibility lie? According to the current reality it is dispersed among hundreds of rebellious, disunified bishops who frequently behave schismatically; who are often acting in the shadow of their lay-dominated diocesan councils and who compromise Roman Catholicism at every turn. Austria is not a unique situation. This is the situation throughout the Neo-Catholic Church. The entire ecclesiastical complex reeks of protestantism, as I have stated before.

By systematising personalistic and phenomenological approaches to The Faith we have finally arrived at the total chaos in the Catholic Church indicated by Fr Paul Marx OSB. Each individual has become vested with a false sense of their own "Royal Priesthood", "sonship" and "kingship" which has been contrived from modernist manipulation of Holy Scriptures. Self-realisation has come of age.

This incident, among many, provides us with every reason to summon Bishop Fellay and other traditional church leaders to act cautiously and avoid walking into carefully laid traps that will stifle Tradition and its absolutely essential place in The Church for the rest of time on Earth. Therefore, it is imperative that The Vatican Councils are fundamentally revised since there is little evidence in the final analysis of living tradition or continuity. It represents what many have claimed all along - a rupture with the pre-conciliar church.

Steve K. said...

This is incredible, it just makes the blood boil. You are right, this is open revolt by the Austrian bishops. And they really show their true colors, don't they? Not only do they attack the Holy Father before the eyes of the world, they load their infamous document full of flatteries and false piety. What an evil thing to do.

For whatever it is worth, I sent an appropriate message auf Deutsch to their Bishop's conference, though I suppose in their perversity they relish the condemnations from the orthodox side.

Confiteor said...

Benedict ought to call em in and sit their a--es down and really tell em the way it is. Otherwise, send em off to Calcutta, the Congo, or Kashmeer..who would care. Then re-appoint True Defenders of the Faith!

Well said. I'm reminded of a True Defender of the Faith who began his ecclesiastical career spreading the Gospel in Dakar.

Anonymous said...

It is such a pity the Pope can't simply lock up the Austrian bishops in the Castel Sant'Angelo until they are considerably more agreeable or hungry. I fear that Benedict XVI does not have the personality to simply ignore these bishops and not withdraw the nomination of Father Wagner. He appears to need people to like him. The ideal solution in my opinion would be to put the first "Lefebvrist" priest that becomes fully available in the Linz opening. That should shake up the whole sorry lot. Let us not forget that only by breaking eggs can an omelette be made - Nur defekte Eier bilden ein Omelett.

Anonymous said...

Joe B you are right on the money. Just one question: Where could one read more on the Monks of Cluny?

Phillip

Anonymous said...

Stephen Kim Sou-hwan dies at 86; outspoken S. Korean cardinal

by John M. Glionna
February 17, 2009


Reporting from Busan, South Korea -- Stephen Kim Sou-hwan, a philosophy student who became South Korea's first Roman Catholic cardinal and an outspoken critic of authoritarian rule, died Monday. He was 86.

Kim had been suffering from pneumonia for several months and was recently hospitalized, the Yonhap news service reported.

He died at a Seoul hospital, according a statement from the archdiocese of Seoul.

Known for his warm, wry smile, Kim was appointed cardinal in 1969 by Pope Paul VI and became an advocate for democracy in this East Asian nation that is home to 4.5 million Catholics.

A spokesman for South Korean President Lee Myung-bak called Lee's death a "national loss."

In 1987, while the nation was mired in anti-government protests, Kim allowed student activists to take refuge in Seoul's main cathedral.

His efforts helped launch South Korea, which had been ruled by strongmen for more than a generation, on the road to democracy.

Kim was born in the city of Daegu in 1922, one of eight children, and attended high school in Seoul. He studied philosophy at Sophia University in Tokyo in the early 1940s and at Catholic University of Korea from 1947 to 1951.

After serving briefly as a parish priest and as a secretary in the Archdiocese of Daegu, he traveled to Germany to study sociology.

At 46, he became the youngest member of the College of Cardinals.

Kim was an advocate of the poor and took an active part in social and democracy issues, opposing the violent suppression of labor unions.

He called for Japan to take greater responsibility for the damage it caused in its 35-year colonial rule over Korea, which ended in 1945.

During the 1987 demonstrations, as he gave refuge to student activists, he brazenly told the government: "If the police break into the cathedral, I will be in the very front. Behind me, there will be reverends and nuns. After we are wrestled down, there will be students," according to his website.

Along with serving as archbishop of Seoul for three decades until 1998, Kim led the Diocese of Pyongyang in North Korea from 1975 until 1998, though he was never able to travel to the country, which remains at political odds with South Korea.

john.glionna@latimes.com

Ju-min Park of The Times' Seoul bureau contributed to this report.

Ligusticus said...

Abp. Farhat is no more Nuntius in Austria. It's Zurbriggen , from the Baltic lands, now. However, Farhat has been a friend of traditionalists..

(I suppose moreover, that Wagner was a sort of his 'gift', before leaving, but...)

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Schonborn is only 64! Meaning no retirement for another 11 years. His Holiness should call him to Rome and appoint him [Schonborn] to some post where he can cause the least harm. And then appoint a real Prince of the Church as Cardinal Archbishop in Vienna. Fight fire with fire.

Anonymous said...

Yours is a terrible, horrible blog with very backward, irrational, close minded ideas.
You only irritate. You do not add
to faith, in the love of God. You only add to bigotry.

I immediately erased your blog from my view list.

Goodbye!

M

Anonymous said...

The Pope's only friends, believe it or not, is the SSPX, it's Bishops, the faithful, all the religios Orders attached to it, in addition to the dozens of other traditionalist priestly and religious Orders lime the ICRSP in Italy, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Franciscans of the Immaculate ( which includes all the priests,brothers,sisters and cloistered nuns....and now also recently founded, cloistered monks) and the millions of traditionalist Catholic faithful who attend the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Let all the rad liberal Catholics in Austria turn to the garbage Protestant "church" there, and in other countries. What will be left are real Catholics. And they will help the Pope rebuild the Church.

Faster than anyone could believe.


(The reference to Cluny is correct. IN the early centuries of the Clunaic Order, they did reform the Church and restore it to tradition and observance. They grew to about 2,500 monasteries at their peak, and about 30,000 monks (12th thru 13th centuries). But by the end of the 13th century, the new mendicant Orders of friars, which in themselves were also very observant and great Orders and built up the Church (Franciscans in all it's branches, the Dominicans, Servites, Trinitarians, Mercedarians, Carmelites, Augustinians...plus dozens of other Orders which unfortunatly are now extinct) for many years did the same beautiful work that Cluny did.
By the time Cluny was destroyed at the French Revolution in the late 1780's, the Order had been corrupt and lax for about 200 years. There were only about 1,200 monks left in the entire Order then, and after the French Revolution in quickly dispersed and went extinct.

Pope Benedict XVI needs a new Order or two like Cluny was in the early days, or Orders like the early Dominicans and Franciscans...all dedicated to the Pope and Catholic Tradition. But none were more so dedicated than the early Jesuits, who liyeraly helped stop the Protestant Reformation in many countries.
They were a great Order for 400 years.
Unfortunatly, we know the filth then have become since Vatican II, a vanguard for dissent and disobedience. Like so many others.

Anonymous said...

"Yours is a terrible, horrible blog with very backward, irrational, close minded ideas.
You only irritate. You do not add
to faith, in the love of God. You only add to bigotry.

I immediately erased your blog from my view list.

Goodbye! "

M


GOODBYE M.

YOU MUST BE EITHER A LIBERAL CATHOLIC, OR A FEMMINIST LIBERAL CATHOLIC. I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS WORSE, THEY ARE BOTH AT THE BOTTOM ON THE BARREL OF BEING CATHOLICS!!!
MY SUGGESTION TO YOU....GO BE A PROTESTANT.

Anonymous said...

SPEAKING OF AUSTRIA, AND AUSTRIAN BISHOPS, HAS ANYONE NOTICED AT THE OFFICIAL VATICAN WEBSITE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE POPE ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF MSGR. WAGNER. AT ALL.

PERHAPS THERE IS HOPE THAT HE WILL STAY. PERHAPS THERE IS HOPE THAT BENEDICT XVI WON'T WIMP OUT UNDER THE PRESSURE FROM THE AUSTRIAN "bishops" AND ALL THE AGED GAY RADICAL LIBERAL PRIESTS IN AUSTRIA WHO ARE AGAINST THE EXCELLENT MSGR. WAGNER.

MAYBE MSGR. WAGNER WILL BE TOLD TO STAY....OR BE GIVEN ANOTHER MORE IMPORTANT POSTING. PERHAPS IN THE VATICAN CURIA.
THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER THAT STAYING IN LINZ.

New Catholic said...

"SPEAKING OF AUSTRIA, AND AUSTRIAN BISHOPS, HAS ANYONE NOTICED AT THE OFFICIAL VATICAN WEBSITE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE POPE ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF MSGR. WAGNER. AT ALL."

Yes, we here at RORATE have noticed it. The situation seems undefined at this moment (cf. also post at P. Rodari's blog).

Let us wait, and pray for the Holy Father.

Jusztinián G. Rathkaj said...

"The Austrian bishops are a cancer on the Church."

The evil of Josephinism is still there very vibrant. The diocese of Linz herself a creation of the wicked Joseph II about whom the Holy Father Pius VI lamented that he had given him the communion on Maundy Thursday 1782. THe present episcopate is a worthy scion of perfidous Joseph II, Kaunitz and the josephinistic prelates of bygone days. The best would have been to name Rev. Wagner as a episcopus in partibus infidelium for the small flock of catholics in Austria termless loyal to Benedict XVI and the universal magisterium.

Anonymous said...

well maybe, but at least the Austrian Bishops, unlike the Lefevre ones don't ordain bishops without an Apstolic Mandate !

Jamie.

Paul said...

Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it.

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics "whose last defense," as Jerome says, "is to start spewing out a serpent's venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished." For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves. Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, "It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man's, or what is worse, the devil's."

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.


Exsurge Domine
Bull of Pope Leo X
June 15, 1520

Ligusticus said...

Well, actually, there would be an open position in the Curia, that would be perfectly ok for Fr. Wagner: i.e. Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

The position became vacant just a few day after Wager appointment in Linz:

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23317.php?index=23317&po_date=04.02.2009&lang=en


On February the fourth, Polish priest Msgr. Kaszak was appointed as bishop of Sosnowiec. He has been in the curial post for just about fifteen months.

Anonymous said...

The Church in England in...? Check the link out below. Not the same as Austria but interesting. In the blog comments section one commenter suggests that in 2010 when the SP is reviewed the NO Bishops will claim that no one asked for the Latin Mass.

B16 needs to rule as a Monarch and scrap collegiality.

"http://blogs.telegraph.co.u/damian_thompson/blog/2009/02/17/cardinal_invokes_canon_law_to_stop_
archbishop_burke_celebrating_latin_
mass_at_westminster"

Anon Anon

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought--Let Rome take away those lovely churches and cushy titles and ask them what they will do without the support of Rome.Since we have done nothing for so long, the Bishops have decided that the Bishop of Rome is incapable of instructing them or leading and importantly has no authority over them

Your Holiness, Throw the baggage out--it's time.

henrici said...

Anonymous @ 21:35,

Von Schoenborn is just making a pitch for the next conclave...

It's hard to believe a Cardinal knows less that me.

Even I know that the next Pope will finish the job Benedict has started so well -- of restoring Tradition (not being so optimistic as to think the disaster following Vaticn II can be rectified in a single papacy).

Anonymous said...

"VATICAN II is a satanic lie."

"You *are* talking about an ecumenical council of virtually all of the world's then-3000-odd bishops in communion with a validly elected Roman pontiff. I assume there are no sedevacantists here, yes?

"We can all agree there are some infelicitously worded parts of the Council documents."

Where to begin? "Some infelicitously worded parts of the Council documents" are hardly responsible for the enormous mess that Roman Catholicism has been straddled with for decades now. To be a genuinely Ecumenical Council requires the subsequent evaluation and judgement of history and the consensus of the Church. What consensus do we have today? Historically, ecumenical councils were called to combat heresies not generate them. There have been plenty of "robber councils" throughout Church history that preened themselves on being "Ecumenical" at the time. What but rotten fruits have been the criteria by which we may know this fully packed council with a "validly elected Roman pontiff?" I assume there are those who pine for the days of JPII here, yes?

Prima said...

Cardinal Schoenborn will have much responsibility before God when his time comes.

Joe B said...

My knowledge of the reform of Cluny came from reading an excellent book on the life of Saint Bernard, which I suspect I bought from Tan Books, although memory may fail there.

As for the delay of the popes in calling for the consecration of Russia, if the Holy Father calls for the collegiate consecration and does his best to support it, Our Lady will do the rest and will either ensure sufficient participation or allow destruction to come upon those who stifled her and her pope. Either will greatly improve the situation in the church, more so than any other action.

It's true, so far, that the Austrian bishops haven't consecrated any bishops without the mandate, although that is likely to change soon. So let's compare which has produced better fruits - being in compliance with the letter of the law, or doing the work of God so obviously called for, and suffering the insults of the Pharisees for it. Give it another 50 years of so and let's revisit this issue.

healthily sanguine said...

I cannot help but notice the stark contrast between the posts (rightly) decrying the Austria situation on this blog and the interview with Bishop Fellay. It seems like we are calling for unconditional surrender on the part of these bishops and priests in Austria who dare to put their own mind above that of the Holy Father. Well, it's all the more obvious that both "sides" have planks in their eyes. Why does not Fellay approach Pope Benedict with open arms and say, "Papa, we will do what you would have us do"? The only way to help this Austrian crisis, other than by prayers, is by the good example of our own obedience and submission to the Holy Father. We need that from the SSPX bishops and priests no less than from all other Catholic clergy. The lack of unity is heart-rending.

Confiteor said...

There have been plenty of "robber councils" throughout Church history that preened themselves on being "Ecumenical" at the time.

Examples, please?

Confiteor said...

Why does not Fellay approach Pope Benedict with open arms and say, "Papa, we will do what you would have us do"? The only way to help this Austrian crisis, other than by prayers, is by the good example of our own obedience and submission to the Holy Father.

Of what specific act of disobedience against the person of the Holy Father do you accuse Bishop Fellay? Something other than the 1988 consecrations, the penalty for which has been removed.

Athelstane said...

"Some infelicitously worded parts of the Council documents" are hardly responsible for the enormous mess that Roman Catholicism has been straddled with for decades now.

Whatever the text says - be it good or not - it's been largely ignored by liberal reformers anyway. Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for retention of Latin and pride of place to chant in liturgy - and yet both were dropped in short order in nearly every episcopal conference.

I don't think there's much disagreement among readers here about the extent of the disasters that have befallen since the 1960's. Was the Council directly responsible? Would they have happened without it in any degree? Fair questions to ask - but remember that the rot was there well before 1962.

To be a genuinely Ecumenical Council requires the subsequent evaluation and judgement of history and the consensus of the Church. What consensus do we have today? Historically, ecumenical councils were called to combat heresies not generate them. There have been plenty of "robber councils" throughout Church history that preened themselves on being "Ecumenical" at the time.

Well, most popular consensus is that it was an ecumenical council. Of course, most of that consensus is not traditionalist. But there are also a lot of traditionalists who consider it to be just that, even if they are not terribly fond of it in certain (many) respects.

It's harder to make the "robber synod" argument given the circumstances of the council. Past such synods were usually regional affairs, with little representation from much of the Church, and almost invariably not done under auspices of the Holy See. Frequently they were under the control or threat of civil powers. Vatican II included virtually every bishop in the Church, and was called by a reigning pontiff. No prince or state forced the Church to call the council.

But it is also true that Vatican II was unlike any of the previous 20 councils in some respects: the lack of any dogmas or anathemas; the lack of an explicit heresy to combat (modernism was afoot, but VII was not called to combat it); the disasters which the Church has sustained since. In regards to the latter Nicaea and Lateran V might be comparable in scope but it's harder to tie the results to anything either council explicitly required - rather, disasters ensued because of what they failed to do or failed to define, by and large.

It may take a long time for a proper assessment of VII. In some ways I suspect that judgment will be unique, like the council itself. But while it's thing to say some of its documents are problematic (which they are), I think it's quite another to call it "satanic."

Which is not to say that some things (passe Pope Paul VI's famous remark) that have happened over the last four decades aren't.

Anonymous said...

I would suggest that all here read the book "The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber". It will show you what really went on during the Second Vatican Council. To attribute such chicanery to the Holy Ghost - now that's over the top!

Anonymous said...

I suppose it is natural to have bleeding hearts but let's have a reality check: the papacy by definition is a leadership position of personal responsibility. For decades clergy have aped the liturgical hijinx of, and permitted by, John Paul II, not to mention his views. Many are understandably confused now by the change in course. I am so very tired of Piero Marini being made the scapegoat for his master's tastes and ecclesiology. Does anyone actually think that the SSPX bishops would have approached JPII with "Papa, we will do what you would have us do"? I think not. Until the idolization of the previous pontiff is toned down considerably the divide in Roman Catholicism that is now growing can only widen.

Hebdomadary said...

"...to call the Council "satanic" is really a bridge too far."

Really? D'ya'think? Do you doubt the Holy Scripture that says "By their fruits you shall know them"? NAME ME ONE CONSTRUCTIVE THING THAT HAS COME FROM THE VAT II REVOLUTION: JUST ONE. THERE IS NONE. NOTHING.

Is it possible 3000 Bishops and a cadre of militant liberal churchmen could be WRONG? YES. THERE IS NOTHING DOGMATIC ABOUT VATICAN II. The Zeitgeist is a GREAT confounder.

Would you be a churchman defending your very livlihood? Possibly. And whether you are or are not, does that mean that I defer to your misguided opinion? No. I say again in the words of a Holy Pontiff: "the smoke of Satan" is in Vatican II. It stinks and reeks of it by its rotten, putrid fruit which litters the once Catholic ground around us.

Can the situation be corrected? YES. By the grace of God, and by beginning to construct the Church rather than de-construct it. Con-struction is the hard, daily ever-beginning, never-ending work of every generation, and not only did we have to weather several of the most spoiled and laziest, most self-indulgent generations in the history of Western Civilization, we also saw them played for suckers by an international socialist revolution the like of which the Church had never encountered. Their generation has failed. We today must bring forward a point in time when the Church retains a recognizable image of itself, and go forward from there. The present offers no useful models. Witness Germany and Austria, in fact most of Western Europe. They have failed, even to the point of committing suicide as a church and a society. They are the man who looked at their reflection in the mirror, walked away, and presently forgot what manner of men they were. 1962 is the way forward nearest our own time.

However, the financial collapse of international Socialism, which is what seems to be going on as we watch, may play a role in restoring order in the Church when finances can no longer prop up the Vat II middle-class status quo. The cure will be more painful than the disease, but it is coming. Be prepared to defend the Pope and the Church.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI; Our Lady of Victories intercede for him.

Jordanes said...

There have been plenty of "robber councils" throughout Church history that preened themselves on being "Ecumenical" at the time.

But, as Athelstane said, none that were properly and lawfully convened, conducted, and ratified with the full and uncoerced approval of the Roman Pontiff.

Anonymous said...

Robber councils, uhh, the Council of Sirmium, the Second Council of Ephesus, the Council of Hieria, and the Council of Pistoia.

Anonymous said...

As almost nobody attends the Novus Ordo services in Austria, what the bishops do is almost totally irrelevant.

Rev. Dr. Athanasius D. McVay, HED said...

The Austrian Bishops need to refresh their church history. As one who has CAREFULLY researched the process of episcopal nominations in the Habsburg Monarchy, I would note that, although the Emperor made the formal "presentation", it was the Pope who nominated the bishops. In fact, the government made sure beforehand that the candidate would be accepted by the Pope before giving his Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majety the go-ahead.

Jordanes said...

Robber councils, uhh, the Council of Sirmium, the Second Council of Ephesus, the Council of Hieria, and the Council of Pistoia.

The only one of those with ecumenical pretensions was the Latrocinium of Ephesus, which was explicitly condemned and annulled by the Church. In addition, the other named synods are unapproved besides being unecumenical.

Face it, Vatican II is valid -- it verges on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, who protects ecumenical councils from binding the Church to teach error, to call Vatican II satanic.

NAME ME ONE CONSTRUCTIVE THING THAT HAS COME FROM THE VAT II REVOLUTION: JUST ONE. THERE IS NONE. NOTHING.

The Council's renewal of the catechumenate was certainly constructive, though greatly mitigated by the post-conciliar collapse of catechesis: a good reform implemented badly.

Dan Hunter said...

"Why does not Fellay approach Pope Benedict with open arms and say, "Papa, we will do what you would have us do"?

I believe His Excellency is doing that, right now.

Dan Hunter said...

"The Council's renewal of the catechumenate was certainly constructive,"

Jordanes,
Please excuse my ignorance;
what are you referring to when you say "the catechumenate"?

God bless.

Anonymous said...

For myself, and I often tell this to my convert husband, the present Church bears absolutely no resemblance to the pre-Vatican II Church. You can dress it up, but there's something vital missing. Religious can run around in traditional habits, but they are not like the old sisters. The pre-VII sisters had a dignity about them that I have yet to find anywhere. You can have all the traditional sacraments and the old Mass, but it's not the same.

Sometimes it seems that the very life has gone out of the Church. Again, something vital is gone.

Anonymous said...

"The only one of those with ecumenical pretensions was the Latrocinium of Ephesus, which was explicitly condemned and annulled by the Church."

Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

"The Council's renewal of the catechumenate was certainly constructive, though greatly mitigated by the post-conciliar collapse of catechesis"

Exactement! Comment amusant.

Hebdomadary said...

"The Council's renewal of the catechumenate was certainly constructive, though greatly mitigated by the post-conciliar collapse of catechesis: a good reform implemented badly."

Oh, GOOD! WHEW! Then it really WAS all worthwhile. I was SO worried there for few decades that all of that time, verbage and money had been wasted on an un-warranted capitulation to the ZEITGEIST. Thank goodness SOMETHING good came of it all...boy, how embarrassingwould that have been!! - not to mention destructive to the fabric of the church - if NOTHING good came of VAT II!! Even though, as you say, that "good" is mitigated by the fact that in the wake of the council the Church's mission to catechise has proven to be insufficiently motivated because of a lack of commitment to a hermeneutic of continuity and orthodox belief. Well, you didn't exactly say so in such detail, but that's what is the case. So it's really not such a good "good" after all, but at least it's SOMETHING, however paltry, and boy am I relieved. I've been sweatin' bullets over that Council thing, wondering how it was going to turn out and all. Thanks for putting my mind at rest. And on the subject of catachesis, how about that new catechism...what a bold, clear, uncompromising document it is, too, huh? A real improvement on Trent. And NEEDED, gosh yes. So "to the point" and concise. Catholicism...a good religion, just explained badly...to this point. It's all set right NOW though.

Come off it, Jordanes. I'm not blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because I don't confuse Him with the zeitgeist. They are not at all the same. And as my own mother has said for years concerning the Church's capitulation to the Zeitgeist in the 1060's, "We all knew that that was the tail waggin' the dog." And she's a Baptist. Open your eyes.

Athelstane said...

NAME ME ONE CONSTRUCTIVE THING THAT HAS COME FROM THE VAT II REVOLUTION: JUST ONE.

I think there have been significant advances in regards to the East: the lifting of the excommunications in 1965; the Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, the recovery of eastern rite liturgical traditions, the rapprochement with the Assyrian Church...and the ongoing discussions with the Orthodox which give at least reasonable hope for ending the Schism at some point in the future.

Not saying that makes up for all the disasters - just that there were some good things that came out of the Council.

Jordanes said...

Dan, I'm referring to the reestablishment of a process of formal parish-based catechesis for adult converts including the bishop's election of the catechumens. Prior to the council adult converts received instruction privately, individually. The Council sought to revive something like the catechumenate of the early centuries of the Church, and from that came "RCIA." As with most if not all of the things proposed by the Council, it has not worked out all that well in practice, but the idea itself is a good one. The Scrutinies need to be reworked, though, and the exorcisms beefed up -- but then that is true of the post-conciliar rite of exorcism in general.

Jusztinián G. Rathkaj said...

"For myself, and I often tell this to my convert husband, the present Church bears absolutely no resemblance to the pre-Vatican II Church. You can dress it up, but there's something vital missing. Religious can run around in traditional habits, but they are not like the old sisters. The pre-VII sisters had a dignity about them that I have yet to find anywhere. You can have all the traditional sacraments and the old Mass, but it's not the same.

Sometimes it seems that the very life has gone out of the Church. Again, something vital is gone."

I share your experiences. Specially then when I remember the canonization of Maria Goretti, which I attended as an infant in 1950. That's now a sunken world.

Jordanes said...

Oh, GOOD! WHEW! Then it really WAS all worthwhile.

You asked for just one constructive thing, Hebdomadary.

I'm not blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because I don't confuse Him with the zeitgeist.

Your words were, “VATICAN II is a satanic lie.” And yet the Church has faith that her ecumenical councils are protected by, perhaps even prompted by, the Holy Spirit.

Now then, take this paper bag and hold it up to your mouth, and breathe slowly and evenly. Try to refrain from immoderate rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

More revolting developments can be read here. From England this time. Don


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/02/17/cardinal_invokes_canon_law_to_stop_archbishop_burke_celebrating_latin_mass_at_westminster

Dan Hunter said...

"Prior to the council adult converts received instruction privately, individually."

Jordanes,
Thank you for the clarification.

But if that was the means of teaching adult converts , as you said, prior to Vatican II, and it apparently worked exceedingly well, why was it changed?

If it aint broke don't fix it.

I would venture to say that the Second Vatican Council was entirely unnecessary since the only parts of the documents that require man's assent of faith are the parts that simply reiterate what the Church taught in 1961, 1960, 1959....all the way back to Christ.
Was the Council supposed to be some kind of refresher course in Trent?

Anonymous said...

The difference between the Austrian bishops and the SSPX ones is that the former have stayed within the boundaries of the Church while voicing their displeasure...whereas the SSPX seems to favor an attitude of "well, if I can't have my way, I'm going to take my toys and go play in my own sandbox..."

Jordanes said...

Dan, the Church had judged the prior, more “individual” method of receiving converts to be inadequate and less desirable than having a formal catechumenate process, in which the parish takes an active role in evangelisation and catechesis, and in which the catechumens are intentionally, publicly and ritually guided into Catholic life and communion with the diocesan Church. The ancient catechumenate developed at a time when the Church existed in a pagan culture, and naturally fell into disuse when the culture was Christianised. In such a circumstance, the culture can be a natural ally in helping to catechise an adult convert. As the former Christendom continued to de-Christianise itself during the 20th century, the Church saw a need to adapt the older model of catechizing adult converts. There was also the need for parishes to exercise their charisms in the mission of evangelisation. So I think it is a good and positive idea the Council Fathers had, which sadly has not been realised.

I would venture to say that the Second Vatican Council was entirely unnecessary since the only parts of the documents that require man's assent of faith are the parts that simply reiterate what the Church taught in 1961, 1960, 1959....all the way back to Christ. Was the Council supposed to be some kind of refresher course in Trent?

I know what you mean --- sometimes it looks to me like the Council wasn’t all that necessary. Sure, the Church had some problems it needed to address, some issues to clarify, and Vatican I had unfinished work that really needed finished, particularly in doctrinal matters of ecclesiology and marriage and family life. But was it really enough to justify calling an ecumenical council? I have to wonder. If it did justify calling a council, it is only reasonable that it would be dogmatic as Vatican I was, and would have intentionally addressed and completed Vatican I’s unfinished work (and in some ways Vatican II did continue what Vatican I had started), and not been merely pastoral. Still, what’s done is done, for better and for worse, and now we live with the consequences. It’s impossible to unconvene and unratify a valid ecumenical council.

Anonymous said...

"Now then, take this paper bag and hold it up to your mouth, and breathe slowly and evenly. Try to refrain from immoderate rhetoric."

Immoderate? Unless some very immoderate brakes aren't applied soon this train is headed over the cliff. Bishops' Conferences everywhere are closely watching to see how Rome will handle the Austrians. We haven't seen anything yet.

Adrienne said...

How many of us agree "Collegiality" is a power-grubbing, self-serving status that undermines the authority of the Pope. Not Catholic.

Confiteor said...

It’s impossible to unconvene and unratify a valid ecumenical council.

True, yet it's possible to admit that some councils were, in the final analysis, a waste of time. A certain Cardinal Ratzinger said as much a decade or so ago.

Dan Hunter said...

Jordanes,

Thank you for your responses.

I have personally seen RCIA devastate potential converts faith.

I was teaching several Protestants the Catholic Faith, with the permission of my Diocesan Bishop and pastor.
I was using the Roman Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism and Canon Ripleys great catechism: "This is the Faith."
I decided at the prompting of another priest to quide my pupils to a local RCIA class.
The teacher proceeded to use borderline heretical material, and really really banal books.
[Think See Mike run, see Jeff chase Mike.]
Also the RCIA class had my students go to a horrific guitar and drum Novus Ordo Mass. Mind you, this parish is one of the more orthodox in my diocese.
This completely turned them off from the Faith, so they quit RCIA and I continued teaching them and bring them to the Traditional Latin Mass, which thrills them, by the way.

They will be baptised in to the Church at Easter.
No thanks to RCIA.

Anonymous said...

He needs to wear his tiara once again.

Jordanes said...

Yeah, RCIA in a lot of places leaves much to be desired, to put it nicely. In my diocese there is the advantage of having had a halfway decent bishop who ordered that all RCIA programs must use the new Catechism as their primary text, must give copies of the Catechism to all catechumens, and must take the Catechism’s treatment of a particular doctrine as the jumping-off point for each session. That went a long way to eliminating most of the goofier or even spiritually deadly stuff I’ve heard has been common in RCIA. And yet that didn’t keep some of the more squishy, touchy-feely things out of the RCIA program that my wife and I went through ten years ago: what does tossing a yarn ball have to do with saving my soul from hell and getting me to heaven? I suppose I must be thankful that, the way things worked out, my wife and I didn’t approach a priest about entering the Catholic Church until RCIA was half over, and rather than turning us away and telling us to come back the following September as I’ve heard some priests so shamefully do, the priest gave us private instruction for two months and then mainstreamed us in with the RCIA class for the Rite of Election and the Scrutinies (for me, one of the best things about the Scrutinies was having to kneel on the sanctuary steps for quite an extended period of time with my heels hanging lower than my knees while waiting for pastor to perform the exorcism: it really hurt, and I was so thankful for the penance and mortification). One of the RCIA teachers also made sure to admonish all of us just days before the Paschal Triduum that we have to be sure we really believe and accept what the Church teaches, and if we don’t, if we have doubts or don’t accept something the Church says is true, then we must not go through with it.

geds said...

nothing new here at all. In fact the situation as described by the bishops is exactly in line with what Cardinal Ratzinger would have been used to in Germany.

Athelstane said...

I would venture to say that the Second Vatican Council was entirely unnecessary since the only parts of the documents that require man's assent of faith are the parts that simply reiterate what the Church taught in 1961, 1960, 1959....all the way back to Christ. Was the Council supposed to be some kind of refresher course in Trent?

Jordanes raises some interesting points in this regard.

Part of the impetus was unfinished business from Vatican I, which was interrupted by the Italian conquest of Rome before it could take up the rest of its agenda (largely ecclesiological). The continuing "captivity" of the Papacy in the Vatican made its resumption problematic at least until the Lateran Treaty regularized its status...and then the Church had lots of other fish to fry. To this extent, a resumption to complete Vatican I's business with appropriate dogmatic formulations would be appropriate by any measure...at some point. It's harder to argue that the 1960's were a propitious time to do it.

But as we all know this was not the only reason John XXIII called it. He perceived problems (and there were problems) and a rapidly changing world which presented new challenges (which it did) to the Church's witness.

Unfortunately, the Church chose in the end to throw open its windows to the world at the precise moment the (western) world went mad, and we have seen the sad results.

So I might argue that a Council was appropriate, even necessary - but the 60's proved to be a questionable time to actually hold it.

prof. basto said...

In the end, only the Pope can solve this problem; only He can sort this mess out; only He can expel the smoke of the Enemy; only He can assert the authority of his Office.

He is the only one who can remove a few Austrian bishops to set an example; only he can depose Cardinals; only he can refuse to accept Fr. Wagner's resignation, as is due under canons 188 and 189 §2; only he can make changes in the curia and in episcopal appointments worldwide, so that we get more, not less, Wagners.

The "ball" is on the Pope's "court". He must be firm. We can and should pray. Prayer helps. But the Pope must decide. He is the one who has to act. Only he has the power, only he has the authority, to do what must be done in this case.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

...and the ongoing discussions with the Orthodox which give at least reasonable hope for ending the Schism at some point in the future.

Setting aside the very real and serious theological differences dividing us, and looking solely at the breathtaking display of ultramontanism on display in the recent essays and comments posted on this one in particular, I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

ICXC NIKA
John

Rich said...

Collegiality at it's finest.

Anonymous said...

Vatican II is turning out to be a very severe punishment for CENTURIES of prideful bishops bucking the authority of the Pope.

This come-uppance was a LONG time coming. Really. Ask Pope St. Pius X. Pray to him.

MCITL said...

Profound disappointment. Card'l Schonborn is emblematic of the orthodoxy on paper only that is completely destroyed by the emasculation of the liturgy through rampant abuses, innovations and aberrations. His work on the Catechism, so heralded as a sign of hope and new birth in the Church, has been rendered by him and his ilk as a "stillborn" by their heterodox attacks upon the letter of faith through the false and malevolent spirit evident in their campaign of attacks upon the liturgy.

God have mercy upon all those who are false, traitors to the faith of Jesus Christ our Lord and His true vicars on earth, Benedict and his predecessors.

Anonymous said...

"The difference between the "Austrian bishops and the SSPX ones is that the former have stayed within the boundaries of the Church while voicing their displeasure...whereas the SSPX seems to favor an attitude of "well, if I can't have my way, I'm going to take my toys and go play in my own sandbox..."



I pasted this response from a contributor.
No, you're wrong about the differences between the Austrian Bishops and the SSPX.
The difference is that one group..the Austrian Bishops (and unfortunatly I could also mention like minded people such as the German Bishops, Swizz, French, Belgians, many USA bishops) have tried to tear down and destroy the Catholic Church, whereas the SSPX has always defended it and tried to build it up.

Big difference. I would rather side with the SSPX, than with the Austrian bishos any day. Because they are Catholic. The Austrian bishops are not.

M.A. said...

"And yet the Church has faith that her ecumenical councils are protected by, perhaps even prompted by, the Holy Spirit."

We clearly see the protection of the Holy Ghost in VII. He prevented the pronouncement of infallibility on any of it's novelties.

Anonymous said...

Athelstane said, "But as we all know this was not the only reason John XXIII called it."

I question J23 motives entirely. He was warned plenty of times that there was not good reason to call a council and the Modernists would turn it on its ear. Nevertheless J23 said he was inspired to do so. ya right, with all due respect.

J23 started the V2 process with a very traditional opening document that was NEVER referred to again...not even by him. He allowed the recovation snow ball to pick up speed by his own interventions at the council. He allowed the door to be opened.

Ref: Rhine Flows Into Tiber and Iota Unum.

Anon Anon

Sara said...

"The difference between the Austrian bishops and the SSPX ones is that the former have stayed within the boundaries of the Church while voicing their displeasure...whereas the SSPX seems to favor an attitude of "well, if I can't have my way, I'm going to take my toys and go play in my own sandbox...""


Within the Church? While they let homosexual infiltation, child abuse, liturgical horrors, doctrinal heresy and apostosy go unchecked, among many other things. Note that they denied this appointment because they wanted a local church; in other words, not a universal one under the head of the Holy Father. The SSPX priests and bishops have been there basically to protect the faith against the novelties that the bishops have almost universally aided, abetted, and promoted.

Ruth said...

I used to believe that the Church was divided into left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives. Many years have passed and I now believe that in the Church there are Catholics and there are non-catholics. Those people who wish to change the face of the church to accept gay marriages and female priests and watered-down catechesis should LEAVE & START THEIR OWN CHURCH - LEAVE OURS ALONE!

Michael said...

As a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion, their reconciliation being mentioned by one poster as one of the tasks for the Holy Father, all I can say is:

Long live Pope Benedict XVI! God grant him many, many years.